The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the injury caused by a special obstruction of performance of official duties among the facts charged in this case, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the police officer of this part of the facts charged, by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, is erroneous in the misapprehension of relevant legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles, even though the police officer was under inspection by attaching a chief window frame of a vehicle suspected to drive a vehicle with a drinking, thereby causing the injury to the police officer by using dangerous articles.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and 80 hours of community service) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the court below found the defendant's driver's car constitutes a dangerous object against the police officers of inspection, and found the defendant not guilty of the injury caused by obstruction of performance of official duties and violence on the ground that the defendant's act was insufficient to recognize this part of the facts charged, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently, and found the defendant guilty of the injury caused by obstruction of official duties among the facts charged of this case on the ground that the defendant's act was insufficient to recognize this part of the charges of this case on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge this differently.

The term "hazardous articles" in the crime of interference with special official duties in Article 144 of the Criminal Act includes all articles that can be widely used to harm human life and body even if they are not deadly weapons.